Prince Charles uses ouija boards!!!
On Prince Charles: She said he surrounded himself with an assortment of gurus, tried to contact his dead uncle Earl Mountbatten though a ouija board and was dismissed by his father as a "wimp".

When Tina Brown wrote her devastating critique of the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana in the American society magazine Vanity Fair in October 1985, it caused a furore on both sides of the Atlantic.

The cover story - with the eye-catching headline "The mouse that roared" - painted an unflattering portrait of an estranged couple just four years into what had, until then, always been cringeingly referred to as a "fairytale marriage".

Brown, at the time an ambitious young British editor charged with turning around the fortunes of an ailing title, did not mince her words. She described Charles as cranky, self-obsessed and, at 36, prematurely old.

She said he surrounded himself with an assortment of gurus, tried to contact his dead uncle Earl Mountbatten though a ouija board and was dismissed by his father as a "wimp".

Diana, meanwhile, was portrayed as a restless and demanding shopaholic who was obsessed with her public image, spent hours with her Press clippings, and regularly assuaged her loneliness by dancing to Wham! on her Sony Walkman.

The expose initially stunned a Royal court that was unprepared for such an uncompromising assault by so well-informed and well-connected a source - Tina Brown is the wife of Sir Harold Evans, the highly respected former editor of The Sunday Times.

But despite a hurriedly arranged rearguard action, in which tame friends of Charles and Diana were lined up to rubbish Brown's account, Royal reporting would never be the same again.

Ever more lurid stories about the state of the Royal marriage became everyday tabloid fodder.

Diana herself helped shape the climate of hysteria by becoming the secret source for Andrew Morton's 1992 book, Diana: Her True Story, which has since been regarded as the definitive account of an innocent Diana wronged by the House of Windsor.

Now, however, just four months before the tenth anniversary of Diana's death, Tina Brown has revisited the marriage in a new book, The Diana Chronicles, which presents a more balanced but, if anything, even bleaker portrait of the marriage and its main players.

While her 1985 article blamed Diana's "boring" and neglectful husband for her slow transformation from mouse into international star, the new publication depicts her as a "spiteful, manipulative, media-savvy neurotic" preying on Charles and then a series of other rich men for their status and wealth.

Brown claims to have interviewed more than 250 insiders, some of whom have never spoken publicly about Diana before.

They range from Tony Blair - whose role in orchestrating the Princess's funeral was recently depicted in the film The Queen - to Dr James Colthurst, the bicycling son of a baronet who has broken a 15-year silence about his secret role in passing on Diana's taped reminiscences to Morton.

The book, to be serialised in Vanity Fair later this week, makes a series of startling allegations:

lDiana ruthlessly pursued Charles because of his position. Her mother Frances Shand Kydd tried to talk her out of the marriage. When she demanded to know whether she loved the Prince or loved "what he is", Diana retorted: "What's the difference?"

Camilla, until now seen as Charles's true love, was also interested in him only because he was the heir to the throne.

She was infatuated with her first husband, Andrew Parker Bowles, whom she pursued relentlessly for six years. Camilla eventually began her adulterous affair in retaliation for Andrew's infidelity.

Diana had two "assignations" with Charles on the Royal train before their marriage, then co-operated with denials by the Palace to preserve her image of virginity.

Diana falsely convinced herself during their honeymoon that Charles had resumed his affair with Camilla. Brown maintains the Prince was faithful until his wife's eating disorders and "loony" tantrums drove him back to Camilla.

Diana's claim that she tried to commit suicide while pregnant with William was a sympathy-seeking lie.

Diana had no intention of marrying Dodi Fayed, whom she romanced purely to infuriate the Palace. Instead, she was plotting to land a far richer man, American financier Teddy Forstmann, as her next husband.

Charles, for all his bitterness over Diana, was still a little in love with her in her final years. In the hours after the Paris crash, he clung to the hope that she would survive, pledging to bring her home and care for her.

Brown is said to have received a £1million advance for her book from Random House, a company formerly headed by her husband.

With 200,000 copies scheduled to be released in America and Britain, and the publishers already taking advance orders on Amazon, it is certain to be a bestseller.

The trenchant account is being defended vigorously by Brown's entourage, who say it is authoritative, meticulously researched and dispenses with the romantic myth that a ruinously self-absorbed and paranoid Diana had turned her life around.

A friend of Brown who has seen a copy of the book said: "Almost everyone except Charles, William and Harry comes off badly - the Queen, Camilla and, most of all, Di.

"It is going to be highly controversial, but this book isn't based on the myths that Diana created about herself and it certainly isn't gossip.

"Tina is incredibly well-connected. She has been able to persuade an unparalleled range of sources and eyewitnesses to talk fully and honestly for the first time, sorting through the layers of contradictions about Diana.

"Diana was a humanitarian who at one level really identified with the common people, as she thought of them. But she was also a very messed-up woman whose downfall was due to her own insane jealousy and self-obsession."

Brown, whose distinguished journalistic career has included editing The New Yorker magazine and Tatler as well as Vanity Fair, dramatically sets the first chapter of the book in the summer of 1997, when she and the Princess had their last "girls' lunch" at the Four Seasons restaurant in Manhattan.

Dressed in a striking green Chanel suit and 3in heels, Diana told Brown over lunch that she was considering a permanent move to the States.

She said that she dreaded spending August without her sons, who were due to visit their father and grandmother at Balmoral. "It will be so difficult,' she fretfully declared, "without the boys."

Brown dismisses this as either self-delusion or a lie. The Princess was openly on the look-out, she says, for a rich new husband.

"In August of 1997, Diana was seeking to replace what she had possessed as a Princess with a superstar's version of the same,' Brown writes. "What she was really seeking was a guy with a Gulfstream."

She embarked on her final holiday with Dodi Fayed in part because of the gifts he lavished on her and the comfort she enjoyed aboard his father's yacht, the Jonikal.

But according to her close friend the art collector Lord Palumbo, she relished the notion that the Queen and Charles disapproved of her cavorting in a bikini with the Egyptian-born playboy.

"She just wanted to make the people at Balmoral as angry as possible," Palumbo tells Brown.

For all the supposed agonies over her "boys", she seems to have ignored William's discomfort about her behaviour. He had a "blow-up on the phone with his mother" after seeing photos of her frolics, the book reports.

Meanwhile, behind Dodi's back, Diana was attempting to ensnare Teddy Forstmann, who owned not only a Gulfstream jet but the company that manufactures the elite executive planes.

Forstmann, who was 57 when he met Diana - about whom he has never spoken before - reveals he sent her flowers every week for three years but denies the relationship was ever sexually consummated.

"She was so unhappy," he said. "Diana definitely wanted a guy in her life. She had the idea that we should get married, that I should run for President and she would be First Lady."

Brown asserts that Diana had at least one other multimillionaire on a string - 58-year-old Hong Kong-based electronics entrepreneur Gulu Lalvani.

A friend of his claims that, despite Dodi and Forstmann, Diana was planning to meet Lalvani in London.

Other lifelong associates suggest that far from being a naive victim damaged by her parents' divorce, as she has often been portrayed, Diana was a skilled and sometimes nasty schemer and had been since early childhood.

In her young days, she took out her frustration by tormenting her nannies and buried herself in romantic fiction. Her daydreams centred on marrying Charles, whom she met when he dated her older sister Sarah.

She was enthralled, Brown says, not by him as a human being and a man, but by the notion of becoming the wife of the future king.

Diana felt that she was much more attractive than her sister, whom she cattily referred to as "a tough old thing".

Although she forged friendships with other eligible young men, including James Colthurst, she was determined to keep herself pure for Charles, her "Prince Charming".

Colthurst confides to Brown that he squired her to parties and the theatre but was "emphatic" that their relationship never became physical.

Charles, of course, numbered Camilla among his early conquests. But Brown comes up with the startling suggestion that Charles was not the love of Camilla's life.

That honour went to the philandering cavalry major she married, Andrew Parker Bowles. She pursued the major for six years, the book says.

When Charles eventually made another play for Camilla in around 1983, she agreed to resume their relationship because, according to Brown, she savoured the idea of being the consort of the Prince of Wales and wanted to sound a warning shot to her own faithless husband.

Targeted by two scheming women, Charles is depicted by Brown as a man desperate for affection. His own mother has often been pilloried as dutiful to the point of being incapable of showing emotion.

A Palace staff member, by way of illustration, told Brown that it was his job to break the news to the Queen that Earl Mountbatten had been assassinated. "She said nothing except, "Thank you very much,"' the employee says.

Diana, however, emerges as the coolest, most calculating character in the book. When Charles made his first pass at her, she told Morton that she was embarrassed.

But an eyewitness to the budding romance, Sabrina Guinness, gave Brown a very different account. It was Diana, Guinness says, who was "all over" Charles - "she was flirting, she was giggling...sitting on his lap".

The ambitious young Diana started to cultivate the Press, preening for photographers and buying newspapers and magazines by the armful so she could ogle herself.

"The shy Di is a myth," one photographer said. When a Sunday newspaper reported in November 1980 that she had spent two nights on the Royal "love train" with Charles, the Palace and Diana issued stern denials.

But Brown claims to have verified the trysts. They were witnessed, she says, by police officers assigned to protect the lovers. One of them leaked the story because he was outraged at the cost to taxpayers.

Brown also maintains that while Diana regarded her maidenhood as a commodity, Charles was "charmed and beguiled" by the seemingly innocent teenager.

Many years later, he would tell his friend and authorised biographer Jonathan Dimbleby that he married her only because of pressure from his father. But Brown says Charles rewrote history because he was so bitter about the failure of the marriage.

Aides to the Prince are quoted as insisting that he was in love, recalling instances such as the cold-lobster dinner at which he wooed Diana by candlelight.

Years after her death, he would wear a favourite pullover she gave him. "Diana bought it for me,' he said. "She had terribly good taste about those kind of things."

Diana's mother was always suspicious of her daughter's motives in marrying Charles. She feared Diana loved not the man, but the status he could bring her.

For instance, presented with a choice of engagement rings, to be paid for by the Queen, Diana picked out the biggest on the tray.

Diana told Morton that she discovered on the eve of her wedding that Charles still was seeing Camilla. She was so upset, she said, that she ate everything in sight, becoming as "sick as a parrot".

But the Queen Mother's page, William Tallon, has a very different memory of that night.

He told Brown that Diana spent the night giddily celebrating. He watched her ride a bike around the Clarence House grounds singing: "I'm going to marry the Prince of Wales tomorrow!"

Diana told Morton that a year into the marriage, and while pregnant with William, she was so distraught at the thought of Charles's infidelity that she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself downstairs at Sandringham.

In her initial version of the story, as relayed verbally to the loyal Colthurst, she said that the Queen found her.

Brown maintains that even Diana was alarmed at such a lie, and later in Morton's book she said it was the Queen Mother.

"Diana changed her mind because even she could see it was a bit dicey to include the sovereign of the realm in a made-up story," Brown writes, adding that members of staff at Sandringham now admit that the whole episode was, in fact, an accidental stumble.

One fact has always remained constant in the telling and retelling of the Diana story - that she became bulimic and Charles was unable to cope.

One aide recalled how Charles hurled her wedding ring at him. "Get it made smaller!" he barked.

Unable to tell the difference between truth and fantasy, Diana was on the verge of a nervous breakdown, a fact hinted at in the original Vanity Fair story.

But The Diana Chronicles goes much further in detailing the nastiness of the rows and the physical violence between the Royal couple.

Brown says that when Diana pelted Charles with shoes, the Prince often threw things back. Once, in a rage, he heaved an antique clock.

On another occasion at Althorp, Diana's family home, they shattered a mirror, damaged an 18th Century chair and broke a window.

Lucia van der Post, the daughter of Charles's mentor, Laurens van der Post, said her father recommended that Diana should visit a psychiatrist.

Despite the screaming matches, Diana made increasingly demeaning attempts to be a "turn-on" for Charles, asking Jasper Conran to design her sexy maternity clothes while she was pregnant with Harry in 1984.

After the birth she attempted to beguile the Prince with a private striptease, but Brown says it was too late. Her outbursts had driven him back to Camilla, who was delighted by her triumph over Diana, whom she considered "gormless".

Brown says the Queen ignored Charles's resumed dalliance, viewing adultery as a "regrettable weakness", while Diana's own romantic infatuations began with her bodyguard, Barry Mannakee.

She indulged in a succession of affairs with "interchangeable chinless wonders" - such as James Hewitt - whom Brown was told she chose because they were "boy toys" bowled over by her glamour.

The book says that while her charitable work gave her some of the satisfaction that she was unable to find in her relationships with men, she often deliberately timed her philanthropic appearances to upstage Charles.

Colthurst says that by the early Nineties, she was so bitter that he sometimes had to censor her more outrageous claims. "She was one very cross lady," he recalls.

Diana received a £17million divorce settlement from Charles. But despite her protestations of ordinariness, status was still important to her.

Her short-lived passion for heart surgeon Hasnat Khan floundered, Brown says, when she decided that he needed to become richer and more important. He angrily dumped her after she tried to line him up with a better job.

Towards the end of her life, Diana became increasingly paranoid, Brown says, making bizarre outbursts claiming that Prince Philip and other Royals wanted to kill her.

Diana told Brown that William was her closest confidant, but she feared that even he would be "Windsorised".

William, meanwhile, fought with his mother over her unseemly relationship with Dodi Fayed right until the end, leaving him devastated by her death. "They would never hug each other and say sorry again," the book says.

The tenth anniversary of Diana's death - and the much-delayed inquest in October - will surely prompt a renewed deluge of lurid claims and mawkish sentimentality.

Asked about the book yesterday, Brown denied taking a harsher view of the Princess than previous commentators.

"Not true at all," she said. "I think it's sympathetic to everyone actually. The book sees everyone from a very human point of view."

She declined to answer questions about specific allegations, saying: "You can wait for the content on that." But she added:

"I definitely think the portrait of Diana is one that has a lot of human generosity. Like everyone she's a combination of things and that's true of all the protagonists in the book."

The Diana Chronicles will certainly be controversial. But it will also puncture the myths surrounding Diana, many of which were propagated by herself.

It is a weird thought don't you think? This is the sort of hocus-pocus we would expect from the dark side.
This little tale begs the question what other matters does the heir to the throne consult the oija board before pronouncing judgement? Polo saddles? International relations? Dennis Wheatley in 'They Used Dark Forces' hinted at the fact that the British establishement trust rather more in the occult than they do in God.

It is a weird thought don't you think? This is the sort of hocus-pocus we would expect from the dark side.
This little tale begs the question what other matters does the heir to the throne consult the oija board before pronouncing judgement? Polo saddles? International relations? Dennis Wheatley in 'They Used Dark Forces' hinted at the fact that the British establishement trust rather more in the occult than they do in God.

I don't think it weird. It is only viewed as dark from a christian perspective. Otherwise I would say it's a healthy spiritual encounter with the unknown.

I'd be more uncomfortable with an establishment that put their trust in a theist God rather than the occult _________________reality is a manufactured illusion

So Charlie's neither an arrogant elitist nor a wife-despatcher then?
Go play with yer divvy board then faust and see where it gets you. Maybe Charlie wants a game?
Most people of all spiritual persuasions and none would kick you out of the house if you started messing with one of these.
What if the prime minister took a "crystal ball" into cabinet meeting every day to help make decisions.
The whole thing's somewhere between effing dangerous and absurd when it comes to making decisions about the future of the nation.
"2000 years of history, can not be wiped away so easily" I can hear ol' Bob again

faust wrote:

I don't think it weird. It is only viewed as dark from a christian perspective. Otherwise I would say it's a healthy spiritual encounter with the unknown.
I'd be more uncomfortable with an establishment that put their trust in a theist God rather than the occult

So Charlie's neither an arrogant elitist nor a wife-despatcher then?
Go play with yer divvy board then faust and see where it gets you. Maybe Charlie wants a game?
Most people of all spiritual persuasions and none would kick you out of the house if you started messing with one of these.
What if the prime minister took a "crystal ball" into cabinet meeting every day to help make decisions.
The whole thing's somewhere between effing dangerous and absurd when it comes to making decisions about the future of the nation.

What is with you fundamental christians? It doesn't say in the bible not to play with ouija boards does it? What are you afraid of? Doesn't your god say he is both good and evil? People would only chuck me out of their house if they had closed minds, all because they have been indoctinated by church dogma and thinking.

If there was proof that political/national decision making was a result of using a ouija board, then I'd say that person isn't fit to be a leader. It's supposed to be a private matter. These fanciful occult conspiracies are plucked out of thin air.

Quote:

2000 years of history, can not be wiped away so easily

What? Paganism was almost wiped from the history books by the church. Heterodox and esoteric knowledge had to go underground so that christian history could be moulded into what it is now. Your 1680 years of manipulated history is beheld with closed minds, your saviour deified so that the church could justify its power over the masses. Your so called history is a farce..._________________reality is a manufactured illusion

Hey faust - come up with a convincing argument and I'll happily reply. But a little bird tells me you're never going to have anything to contribute here and that you and your ilk have outlived their usefullness to the dark one.

Meanwhile - just got this from one of my correspondants
---------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
WHO WILL GOVERN THE NEW WORLD ORDER PRINCE CHARLES OR JAVIER SOLANA???

Hey faust - come up with a convincing argument and I'll happily reply.

hmmm, we have a 9/11 moderator who thinks the bigger picture involves prince charles playing with his ouija board. Now how do i convince someone like that tony?

Quote:

But a little bird tells me you're never going to have anything to contribute here and that you and your ilk have outlived their usefullness to the dark one.

Interesting... Tell that little bird of yours to face their cowardice and tell that to me themselves. Say hello to our mutual acquaintance please, my good fundamentalist

Oh yeah, shall i contribute some comforting end times propaganda or would you prefer stories about illuminati mock sacrifices or an exclusive story about guillotines being imported to amerika for beheading christians or more fearmongering nonsense to keep your fear driven belief alive? Lemme know asap tony, I can't wait!_________________reality is a manufactured illusion

Luckily it was all just a lie. Thank goodnes for that, I can stay in my comfort zone still for a while. I just discovered Prince Charles denied ever even seeing a ouija board 12 years ago. Back in the days before bloggers and Indymedia and before discussion forums like this started to provide a threat to the establishment line on everything.

Quote:

ROYAL COUPLE ON '20/20'
By JOHN CORRY
Published: November 7, 1985

WHAT'S not to like about the Prince and Princess of Wales? It's true she can't keep up with her dance classes, while he shows a mild tendency toward vegetarianism, but the stuff about the Ouija board is bilge; he's never even seen one. We get the Prince and Princess, young William and baby Harry, too, on ABC's ''20/20'' at 8 o'clock tonight. It is a stately piece of work.

Noooooooo! Well, that does it, I can see the error of my ways and realise what an evil so-and-so prince charles is!!! Thanks for this well informed and sensational contribution Tony..._________________reality is a manufactured illusion

Hi thought you might be interested in this story from the BBC in 2002 about how a bronze statue of Charles is been made to be put in the amazon... the link is to the story about it.. the only thing is it only shows the top of charles...
All you can see his Charles with his wings... so I have attached a full length pic of him where you can see him standing on skulls!!!!! ?????

Hi thought you might be interested in this story from the BBC in 2002 about how a bronze statue of Charles is been made to be put in the amazon... the link is to the story about it.. the only thing is it only shows the top of charles...
All you can see his Charles with his wings... so I have attached a full length pic of him where you can see him standing on skulls!!!!! ?????

I agree it looks odd but one would have to know the customs and beliefs of the village before one can come to any conclusion _________________'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'

“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”

Never any fixed ideas from me just sharing the info as always,,
I just see what I see which is Prince Charles with big wings standing on skulls which is been put in the Amazon Rainforest...

In the article it says... Explaining its significance, Tacantins state governor Jose Wilson Sequeira Campos said: "It is Prince Charles saving the world".

Saving the world by standing on Human Skulls, I personally would have thought of a better theme to show him saving the world, but thats just me _________________REVOLUTION OR REVELATION? For years they have been studying us. The time has come for us to study them!

Hi thought you might be interested in this story from the BBC in 2002 about how a bronze statue of Charles is been made to be put in the amazon... the link is to the story about it.. the only thing is it only shows the top of charles...
All you can see his Charles with his wings... so I have attached a full length pic of him where you can see him standing on skulls!!!!! ?????

I agree it looks odd but one would have to know the customs and beliefs of the village before one can come to any conclusion

Quote:

At his feet are human bodies, one of whom is drinking a bottle of wine.

The picture shows he isn't standing on skulls but hovering over the bodies... It is the customs and beliefs of fundamental christians that cause them to take this picture out of context _________________reality is a manufactured illusion

Hey, maybe he needs to rule the world to fulfill his potential, he's sad because he doesn't have enough power yet

Well how about starting by denouncing the genocide in Iraq and the opium harvesting in Afganistan like NOW! As his gutsy murdered ex-wife would have done. The longer you leave it Charlie the more hundreds of thousands of deaths due in no small part to your inaction. And don't tell us you can't be political, you're happy spouting off abouit just about every other subject. This 'don't mention the war approach is killing me. And them.

Looks to me like he's being groomed, encouraged into delusions of grandeur. It wouldn't be difficult for mediums and/or other weirdos to convince our Charlie that he had a 'great role to save the world'. Only the time is not yet right.

Hang on, how many people have to die first matey? Get on with it!

Yes, people really do believe this kind of claptrap about being massively fated and what that does is almost paralyse individuals freedom of thought and action. The powerful thing is the way that spiritualism massages the ego and Charlie's ego must be in ecstacy by now.

Even evil Al Campbell, above, has recognised that Charles has surrounded himself with sycophantic 'yes men' which doesn't say a lot for his self-critical faculties. That means he has a fragile ego which may be why he was so livid with Diana for daring to fight back. Once they fell out in 1992, or whenever it was, I saw the two of them together at close range. He couldn't bear the attention she got and the love the public gave her. That also points to some serious mental inadequay. The very thing he accused her of. False flag accusations of mental illness anyone.

He is an accomplished actor, author, poet, and statesman. He has dated some of the most stunning women in Hollywood history, from Elizabeth Taylor and Debbie Reynolds, to Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have approached him about running for President, but he is not interested, as he wishes to remain more behind the scenes. He is a man that no matter what the situation continues to bedazzle, captivate, and fascinate.

He is also known for being one of the few people to maintain a close friendship with both Princess Diana and Prince Charles after their divorce. He was one of the last people that Diana spoke to before her untimely death. And he still regularly goes to England to hunt with Charles.

There are rumors that Rory himself is the source of many of the questions about him on Yahoo Answers, but this has never been confirmed!

What about Tina's "art collector friend" Lord Palumbo? thirty years ago this worthy wrote a book explaining how much he detested zionism abd giving detailed reasons why. Since then he has wisely concentrated on being a rich parasite._________________http://niqnaq.wordpress.com

Oh, for god's sake... is there really a point to this topic? I am sick to death of religion being intimately tied in on conspiracy websites. Just because someone belongs to a religion other than yours doesn't make them part of the "Bigger Picture", Tony. You've really got to get a better argument than "OMG HE GOT A OUIJA BOARD! DEVILNOOBLOL"

I completely agree with faust. Do you know how embarrassing it is to live in a country where you don't stand a chance at getting elected to the top office unless you profess a belief in a violent, misogynistic, potentially delusional, invisible a-hole?_________________"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak

Ouija boards are very dangerous things to use if you don't know how to use them properly, and if you don't know how to use them properly and protect yourself you must not even touch them.

I've had ouija boards described to me as "a bit like making a phone call to the spirit world, but if you don't know how to use it properly, you don't know whos going to pick up the phone at the other end.

I have had 2 experiences with ouija boards in my life, once when i was with my mum when i was quite young and once with my current partner.

My mum was a spiritualist and one evening she had a group of friends round and they did a session with the ouija board.

She did it on a glass top table that she had and she put the letters of the alphabet around the table in a circle with the words "yes" ay the top and "no" at the bottom of the circle.

Even though the people that were sitting around the table only were putting very light pressure with their finger on the top of the glass (which by the way she put a cross and chain inside it for protection), the glass started moving very rapidly and very sharply at first inside the circle of letters.

Then it seemed to slow up for a while and creep towards the letters that it wanted to.

The second experience was with my partner who is a pagan, i think in that session we got in contact with a WW2 submarine commander who regretted all the lives that he took when he was alive.

I don't think ouija boards are toys, and they should be treated with respect and should not be used for "a bit of fun" or "a laugh" and if you don't know how to use them properly you touch them at your peril._________________One sure way for evil to prevail, is for the good to do nothing.

The guy who mass-manufactured ouija boards in the USA died in bizarre circumstances falling off the roof of the factory to a painful and slow death.

Have absolutely nothing to do with these things, except to burn them. There is no way to use them "properly". By even giving credence to the dark powers contained therein you are willingly removing yourself from God's spiritual protection ... handing yourself over to demonic forces to play about with your credibility and trick you into playing again and again until you get obsessed and/or badly hurt.

Louise wrote:

I think in that session we got in contact with a WW2 submarine commander who regretted all the lives that he took when he was alive.
I don't think ouija boards are toys, and they should be treated with respect and should not be used for "a bit of fun" or "a laugh" and if you don't know how to use them properly you touch them at your peril.

I'm not religous, in fact i think religon is just another methord to use fear and control people.

But i have had a couple of supernatrual experiences in my life.

And as for ouija boards i've always told people that they are NOT a game, that people should leave them well alone if they don't know what they are doing.

Unfortunately some people don't heed this warning with disaterous results, like my mum's friend who was called Chris.

He started playing with a ouija boards and got possesed and started slashing his entire body with a knife from head to foot.

His flat was filled with black magic books and pictures of the devil on his walls.

Then my mother stupidly (i think) challenged the spirit/entity that was possesing her friend to come at her instead.

Soon after my mums friend got better, then my mum got MS.

That was when i was 6 years old (i'm 37 now).

I don't know it could just have been coincidence, but i find it very strange that shortly after she did what she did, her friend got better and my mum got MS.

My mum was brave but stupid, she died from MS on 13/03/1988.

I can't say that i've felt or had any ill effects from the two ouija board experiences that i've had and i hope i never will.

But maybe that's because i didn't think of ouija boards as being a joke or as a bit of fun, because they certainly are not.

I have never attempted to use a ouija board alone, and i never would, and nor should anyone else.

Neither have i ever felt tempted to use one again.

Good and Evil is within all of us.

Personally if i could have the dark part of me removed (taken away) and leave only the good, i think that would be great._________________One sure way for evil to prevail, is for the good to do nothing.

3. He talks to the dead, not his plants
The Prince’s famous comment that he likes to talk to his plants at Highgrove is dismissed by Mayer as a throwaway joke, but she claims he does go to his garden to talk to the dead.
He was so affected by the loss of his mentor Earl Mountbatten in an IRA bombing in 1979 that it “made him want to die too”, and “fell into a despair” following the death of his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth, in 2002.

The Prince of Wales at Highgrove (Getty)
Despite his faith, and belief in the afterlife, “Charles never quite relinquishes his grief”, Mayer says. “He fills his domains with little shrines and memorials; he goes into his gardens not to talk to the plants but to the deceased.”
In doing so, he hopes to keep the Queen Mother, Mountbatten “and a host of other departed spirits alive in his heart”.
The garden at Highgrove includes a sanctuary made of stone, clay and barley straw, with a wood burning stove, built by the Prince “to geometric principles which he considers sacred”. Above the door is an inscription in Pictish, the language of an ancient British tribe, which translates as “Lighten our darkness we beseech thee, o Lord”.
Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, consecrated it in 2000 and described it as a hermitage where the Prince reads the Philokalia, a collection of texts written between the 4th and 15th centuries for the contemplation of monks at Mount Athos in Greece, the home of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
Lucia Santa Cruz would not be surprised at his choice of reading matter: she suggests that Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, which she persuaded him to read at university, may be the only novel he has ever read.
“He said he liked [the novel] but he never wanted to read another one, I don’t think. He always wanted to stick to history or essays,” she told Mayer.

Published on Tuesday, 28 October 2014 09:33
VinceAndDonna
"Just a bit fun!", as the phrase goes, what could possibly be harmful about playing with a painted board and a wooden "planchette"? Friends, spooky laughs, bottle of wine - a good time to be had by all!

In the run-up to Halloween we are joined once again by Vince McCann, Director of Spotlight Ministries here in the UK, for an intriguing, challenging and entertaining conversation on the subject of the Ouija Board. Speaking from his experience of having once been involved in the Occult, Vince explains why the Ouija Board is far from "just a bit of fun". Characterising it, rather, as "spiritual Russian roulette", Vince warns that its use has frequently been associated with mental illness and spiritual oppression.

Disgraced former bishop and convicted paedophile Peter Ball tried to used his “status of confidant” with Prince Charles to boost his position, a damming report has revealed.

A major independent review found the Church of England “concealed” evidence of child abuse against Ball for more than 20 years.

He was jailed for 32 months in October 2015 after admitting to a string of historical sex offences against teenage boys and young men between the 1970s and the 1990s.

The report, Abuse of Faith, found that Ball, then bishop of Gloucester, suggested “on many occasions” to the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord George Carey and others that he “enjoys the status of confidant of the Prince of Wales”.

He "sought to exploit his contact with members of the royal family in order to bolster his position, particularly in the eyes of Lord Carey and others from whom he hoped to receive sympathetic treatment,” the report says.

The review into how the Church of England dealt with the case accused Lord Carey and other senior church figures of having “concealed” reports of Ball’s offences. It was revealed Lambeth Palace failed to pass on six letters of allegations of sex offences to the police.

Criticising Lord Carey’s response, the report said he “set the tone for the Church’s response to Ball’s crimes and gave the steer which allowed Ball's assertions that he was innocent to gain credence”.

The report found Ball made sure Lord Carey knew about his correspondence with Prince Charles and that he visited Highgrove House, the family residence of the Prince of Wales and Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall in Gloucestershire.

Upon his retirement Ball, alongside with his twin brother Michael, who was also a bishop, rented a house from the Duchy of Cornwall.

But the review went on to say it “found no evidence that the Prince of Wales or any other member of the royal family sought to intervene at any point in order to protect or promote Ball”.

Following the publication of the report, Lord Carey said he accepted the criticisms and apologised to Ball’s victims saying he “gave them too little credence”.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who described the report as “harrowing reading” and decried “inexcusable and shocking behaviour”, has asked Lord Carey to step down from his role as an honorary assistant bishop in Oxford following the report.

Rev Dr Steven Croft, Bishop of Oxford, has confirmed Lord Carey has "voluntarily agreed to step back from public ministry".

UK news in pictures
18
show all
The report notes Ball’s links with high profile and influential figures were feared by members of the public as the way the Church and other public authorities responded in the face of sex abuse allegations against the former bishop.

Along with Lord Carey, Lord Donald Coggan, the former Archbishop of Canterbury in the late 1970s, a diocesan bishop, two MPs, two public school headmasters, one former headmaster, senior staff members from another public school and Lord Justice Lloyd were among the senior figures, who wrote supportive letters about Ball when he was under investigation in the early 1990s.

Ball was placed under police caution in 1993.

Yet, the report states there was “no doubt” Ball's supporters were “unaware” of the evidence leading to the caution in 1993 or they were “convinced by his protestations of being hard done by”.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum